A Bound for Publication Bias Based on the Fraction of Unpublished Studies
- 11 March 2004
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Biometrics
- Vol. 60 (1) , 146-153
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2004.00161.x
Abstract
Publication bias in meta-analysis is usually modeled in terms of an accept/reject selection procedure in which the selected studies are the "published" studies and the rejected studies are the "unpublished" studies. One possible selection mechanism is to suppose that only studies that report an estimated treatment effect exceeding (or falling short of) some threshold are accepted. We show that, with appropriate choice of thresholds, this attains the maximum bias among all selection mechanisms in which the probability of selection increases with study size. It is impossible to estimate the selection mechanism from the observed studies alone: this result leads to a "worst-case" sensitivity analysis for publication bias, which is remarkably easy to implement in practice. The method is illustrated using data on the effectiveness of prophylactic corticosteroids.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Medical Research, 2001
- Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysisBiostatistics, 2000
- Modeling publication bias using weighted distributions in a Bayesian frameworkComputational Statistics & Data Analysis, 1998
- Publication bias in meta-analysis: a Bayesian data-augmentation approach to account for issues exemplified in the passive smoking debateStatistical Science, 1997
- An Application of Gibbs Sampling to Estimation in Meta-Analysis: Accounting for Publication BiasJournal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 1997
- An Approach for Assessing Publication Bias Prior to Performing a Meta-AnalysisStatistical Science, 1992
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- Estimation of Effect Size under Nonrandom Sampling: The Effects of Censoring Studies Yielding Statistically Insignificant Mean DifferencesJournal of Educational Statistics, 1984
- Estimation of Effect Size under Nonrandom Sampling: The Effects of Censoring Studies Yielding Statistically Insignificant Mean DifferencesJournal of Educational Statistics, 1984
- Estimating effect size: Bias resulting from the significance criterion in editorial decisionsBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1978